move_note

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With only openWorldHint=false and no safety annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the key behavior of rejecting an existing destination by default (aligning with the overwrite default), but it does not explicitly state that the original source is removed (a destructive effect) or mention permission requirements or impact on backlinks. This is moderately transparent but leaves important mutation details undisclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource, then adds a key behavioral detail. There is no redundant information; every word contributes value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given a destructive move operation with four parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain overwrite behavior, path rules, return values, error conditions, or the requirement that the vault be registered. The tool's disruptive nature demands more context than provided.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It identifies a 'registered vault' and 'Markdown note' but does not explain path semantics (relative vs absolute), what 'sourcePath' and 'destinationPath' mean in practice, or what happens when overwrite=true. The brief mention of rejecting existing destinations adds limited meaning beyond the schema's default value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'Move' and identifies the resource as 'a Markdown note inside a registered vault', clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like create_note, update_note, or delete_note. It also specifies a key behavioral nuance (rejecting existing destinations) that separates it from a simple move.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is for relocating notes within a vault but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions (e.g., moving across vaults). The purpose is clear enough that an agent could infer usage, but explicit when/when-not guidance is absent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.